Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

franktheplank

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure if answering a question from a patient's relative honestly amounts to being a whistleblowing hero. But i suppose its better than lying.

Friends like you, who needs enemies?

drkpower

franktheplank wrote: »

I thought you guys were so certain on this, his hands were tied by the constitution right, that's why Sativa died, not because of a poor individual decision?

Us guys?

Ive no idea whether this lady's death was tragically unavoidable, was as a consequence of medical negilgence or was due to uncertainty as to the legal position. I hope the investigation will clarify the above.

franktheplank

drkpower wrote: »

Us guys?

Ive no idea whether this lady's death was tragically unavoidable, was as a consequence of medical negilgence or was due to uncertainty as to the legal position. I hope the investigation will clarify the above.

Thanks, well your one of the few people here waiting for the facts. Most of the pro-choice people here are adamant that Sativa died because of our constitution and for that to be the case i can't see how you don't acknowledge the consultant as a seriously brave guy?

seb65

franktheplank wrote: »

Thanks, well your one of the few people here waiting for the facts. Most of the pro-choice people here are adamant that Sativa died because of our constitution and for that to be the case i can't see how you don't acknowledge the consultant as a seriously brave guy?

Who said the particular consultant is a guy? What are you on about "him" telling the husband and acting as a whistleblower?

Madam_X

franktheplank wrote: »

Sush now, don't mention the dang feminists, it's that dang pope and that dang Illuminati what fixed the dang referendum.

Feminists aren't being mentioned because they didn't cause her death.

drkpower

franktheplank wrote: »

Thanks, well your one of the few people here waiting for the facts. Most of the pro-choice people here are adamant that Sativa died because of our constitution and for that to be the case i can't see how you don't acknowledge the consultant as a seriously brave guy?

There are too many unknowns to be sure about what happened here. But what i will say, and where i agree with the posters you are referencing, is that the lack of clarity in the legal position is a tragedy waiting to happen. It may have contributed to this case, it may not have. But it will definitely contribute to a future case if legal clarity (insofar as that is possible) is not established.

As for the consultant, first im not sure what precisely he said to the husband? Do you? If he was simply answering a question honestly, as he is obliged to do that, I wouldn't think that singles him out for particular praise.

franktheplank

seb65 wrote: »

Who said the particular consultant is a guy? What are you on about "him" telling the husband and acting as a whistleblower?

Sorry I thought it was known the consultant was male, no biggy just 'the consultant' then.

Doesn't change the point though. If the consultants hands were tied by the constitution it was very brave of them to have come out and said this, I mean they must have known it would go further.

In any serious medical procedure if a doctor says sorry I can't do it because the constitution won't allow it, surely that doctors gonna expect a serious can of worms to be opened.

A lot of people would bury their head in the sand. Surely the pro-choice crowd have to acknowledge this consultant as something of a hero? I mean the consultant has told the truth (where we can presume others have kept quiet or been ignorant) and as such has brought thousands out on the street marching and the attention of the world's media.

What are the pro-choicers gonna turn their back on this person?

Madam_X

Aiel wrote: »

Here's another article you wont find in the Irish Times or on RTE;).

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=949

Why would they publish/broadcast an editorial from a specifically catholic publication?

seb65

franktheplank wrote: »

Sorry I thought it was known the consultant was male, no biggy just 'the consultant' then.

Doesn't change the point though. If the consultants hands were tied by the constitution it was very brave of them to have come out and said this, I mean they must have known it would go further.

In any serious medical procedure if a doctor says sorry I can't do it because the constitution won't allow it, surely that doctors gonna expect a serious can of worms to be opened.

A lot of people would bury their head in the sand. Surely the pro-choice crowd have to acknowledge this consultant as something of a hero? I mean the consultant has told the truth (where we can presume others have kept quiet or been ignorant) and as such has brought thousands out on the street marching and the attention of the world's media.

What are the pro-choicers gonna turn their back on this person?

From what source are you getting that the consultant told the husband it was because of the constitution that they wouldn't provide her with a proper medical procedure?

All the reports I've seen are "because it was a Catholic country"

strandroad

seb65 wrote: »

Who said the particular consultant is a guy? What are you on about "him" telling the husband and acting as a whistleblower?

Actually there was a BBC article in which the husband was quoted referring to the consultant as "she".

drkpower

franktheplank wrote: »

Doesn't change the point though. If the consultants hands were tied by the constitution it was very brave of them to have come out and said this, I mean they must have known it would go further.

In any serious medical procedure if a doctor says sorry I can't do it because the constitution won't allow it, surely that doctors gonna expect a serious can of worms to be opened.

Why is it especially brave? All materal deaths are investigated (in multiple ways), so whatever the reason for the death there was going to be an inquiry. For any consultant to state that the constitutional position compromised his decision making is not especially brave.

In fact, a cynic might say it is directly in a consultant's own interest to say this.

But again, what did the consultant say? Do you know?

franktheplank

Madam_X wrote: »

Feminists aren't being mentioned because they didn't cause her death.

:rolleyes: Where to begin :rolleyes:

If a woman died in a country where abortion on demand was legal. And let's just suppose the feminist movement had played some role in it being legal (that's pretty straightforward right?).

Here comes the real shocker, wait. Let's suppose she dies as a result of complications during an abortion(guess what, it happens). Does that mean abortion is wrong? And feminists killed her?

So everyone gets out marching. Abortion is banned. A woman dies because she was denied an abortion. All out marching. The church killed her. Abortion is ok again. Another woman dies from complications of abortion. The feminists killed her. All out marching. And so on and so on and so on ad infinitum.

Madam_X

Yeh, feminists didn't cause this woman's death, hence them not being discussed.

Pretty shocking to use this horrendous case to push your agenda.

drkpower

franktheplank wrote: »

:rolleyes: Where to begin :rolleyes:

If a woman died in a country where abortion on demand was legal. And let's just suppose the feminist movement had played some role in it being legal (that's pretty straightforward right?).

Here comes the real shocker, wait. Let's suppose she dies as a result of complications during an abortion(guess what, it happens). Does that mean abortion is wrong? And feminists killed her?

So everyone gets out marching. Abortion is banned. A woman dies because she was denied an abortion. All out marching. The church killed her. Abortion is ok again. Another woman dies from complications of abortion. The feminists killed her. All out marching. And so on and so on and so on ad infinitum.

Frank, in your excitement to get one over on the pro-choice side, you are coming up with poor arguments.

Your comparison doesnt stand. If a woman chooses an abortion, she does so in the knowledge that it may have uninteneded consequences. Analogising that with a woman who is refused a life saving procedure whilst pregnant (such as termination of an early miscarriage complicated by sepsis) is flawed.

seb65

franktheplank wrote: »

:rolleyes: Where to begin :rolleyes:

If a woman died in a country where abortion on demand was legal. And let's just suppose the feminist movement had played some role in it being legal (that's pretty straightforward right?).

Here comes the real shocker, wait. Let's suppose she dies as a result of complications during an abortion(guess what, it happens). Does that mean abortion is wrong? And feminists killed her?

So everyone gets out marching. Abortion is banned. A woman dies because she was denied an abortion. All out marching. The church killed her. Abortion is ok again. Another woman dies from complications of abortion. The feminists killed her. All out marching. And so on and so on and so on ad infinitum.

No, because women would choose whether or not to have an abortion. They would weigh the risks for themselves. If they wanted to live their life in accordance with religious teachings, they would refrain. If they didn't want to live in accordance with what someone's sky God is supposed to believe, as was told to them by someone who may or may not have just come out of confession after molesting an altar boy, they wouldn't.

They would make their own choice based on all available information - from both sides. Women are actually intelligent beings who can analyze info and weigh risks. They don't need people like you - or me - to tell them what to do, in order for their own protection.

They wouldn't be forced to choose one because some doctor has decided its his/her right to impose his/her beliefs on them.

franktheplank

drkpower wrote: »

Why is it especially brave? All materal deaths are investigated (in multiple ways), so whatever the reason for the death there was going to be an inquiry. For any consultant to state that the constitutional position compromised his decision making is not especially brave.

In fact, a cynic might say it is directly in a consultant's own interest to say this.

But again, what did the consultant say? Do you know?

Funny that I'm not seeing this level of outrage and investigation for all materal deaths?

I've made it very clear i've nothing more than one account and speculation on what the consultant said, but for plenty of people here that's enough to establish fact.

So, i think you're argument is that the facts of the case we're going to come to light anyway (i doubt it) and that the consultant may have been acting pre-emptively.

We'll it's still very brave of them to blame the church or a vague constitution because it has to leave them open to a strong case that they've abandoned their medical ethics.

Surely the ethical thing to do is to treat the patient and argue about the constitution after, or what face the church?

seb65 wrote: »

From what source are you getting that the consultant told the husband it was because of the constitution that they wouldn't provide her with a proper medical procedure?

All the reports I've seen are "because it was a Catholic country"

But why marching to change the constitution, do we really believe the government and the constitution are to blame if a consultant was weak enough to submit to pressure from the church.

That's just clear medical negligence pure and simple.

seb65

franktheplank wrote: »

Funny that I'm not seeing this level of outrage and investigation for all materal deaths?

I've made it very clear i've nothing more than one account and speculation on what the consultant said, but for plenty of people here that's enough to establish fact.

So, i think you're argument is that the facts of the case we're going to come to light anyway (i doubt it) and that the consultant may have been acting pre-emptively.

We'll it's still very brave of them to blame the church or a vague constitution because it has to leave them open to a strong case that they've abandoned their medical ethics.

Surely the ethical thing to do is to treat the patient and argue about the constitution after, or what face the church?



But why marching to change the constitution, do we really believe the government and the constitution are to blame if a consultant was weak enough to submit to pressure from the church.

That's just clear medical negligence pure and simple.

No one is marching to change the constitution. They are marching for legislation to reflect the constitution.

franktheplank

seb65 wrote: »

No, because women would choose whether or not to have an abortion. They would weigh the risks for themselves. If they wanted to live their life in accordance with religious teachings, they would refrain. If they didn't want to live in accordance with what someone's sky God is supposed to believe, as was told to them by someone who may or may not have just come out of confession after molesting an altar boy, they wouldn't.

They would make their own choice based on all available information - from both sides. Women are actually intelligent beings who can analyze info and weigh risks. They don't need people like you - or me - to tell them what to do, in order for their own protection.

They wouldn't be forced to choose one because some doctor has decided its his/her right to impose his/her beliefs on them.

Okey doke, so where does the church come into this? Is this coming back to the pope and the Illuminati riggin the last referendum yall?

So what your saying is that people are reasonable enough to make their own decision but still just do what the church tell them?

I think you need to take a step back and have a serious look at you're reasoning coz there's a pretty obvious flaw in it.

drkpower

franktheplank wrote: »

Funny that I'm not seeing this level of outrage and investigation for all materal deaths?

All maternal deaths are subject to at least 3 investigations; a coroner's inquest and an internal hospital inquiry and an inquiry by the confodential inquiry into maternal death.

franktheplank wrote: »

We'll it's still very brave of them to blame the church or a vague constitution because it has to leave them open to a strong case that they've abandoned their medical ethics.

Surely the ethical thing to do is to treat the patient and argue about the constitution after, or what face the church?

But why marching to change the constitution, do we really believe the government and the constitution are to blame if a consultant was weak enough to submit to pressure from the church.

That's just clear medical negligence pure and simple.

You appear to think that the only barrier to the consultant acting to terminate was the church. That is simply untrue. The barrier is the law (or in this case, may have been the law).

You claim the doctor should have treated and argue about the constitution after. You mean argue when faced with a criminal charge? And when faced with a fitness to practice committee that could revoke his licence to practice. In your own employment, would you disobey the law in such a fashion with the risk of imprisonemnt and the loss of your livelihood?

franktheplank

Madam_X wrote: »

Yeh, feminists didn't cause this woman's death, hence them not being discussed.

Pretty shocking to use this horrendous case to push your agenda.

I've made it pretty clear i've no great bones with feminist ideology. My point (if you'd followed the thread) is the number of people here using this case to push another agenda.

Flier

franktheplank wrote: »

Funny that I'm not seeing this level of outrage and investigation for all materal deaths?

Why is that funny? Maternal deaths are tragic, sad and emotive. But unless they are unavoidable, why would there be outrage??

seb65

franktheplank wrote: »

Okey doke, so where does the church come into this? Is this coming back to the pope and the Illuminati riggin the last referendum yall?

So what your saying is that people are reasonable enough to make their own decision but still just do what the church tell them?

I think you need to take a step back and have a serious look at you're reasoning coz there's a pretty obvious flaw in it.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. You seem not able to comprehend simple points, so there's no point in explaining it to you.

franktheplank

drkpower wrote: »

You claim the doctor should have treated and argue about the constitution after. You mean argue when faced with a criminal charge? And when faced with a fitness to practice committee that could revoke his licence to practice. In your own employment, would you disobey the law in such a fashion with the risk of imprisonemnt and the loss of your livelihood?

So this is the first the medical profession has known of this problem, it's painting the rest of it in a very bad light.

They we're willing to wait for a woman to die before something was done on this.

My point is that what's been presented as fact in this case doesn't add up. The consultant is honest enough to tell the truth but willing to sit back and let a woman die. That just doesn't ring true to me.

From what I've seen reported, medical abortions have occured in Ireland without prosecution and loss of employment, is this correct? So what the consultant let her die to make a point, it just doesn't add up?

franktheplank

drkpower wrote: »

Frank, in your excitement to get one over on the pro-choice side, you are coming up with poor arguments.

Your comparison doesnt stand. If a woman chooses an abortion, she does so in the knowledge that it may have uninteneded consequences. Analogising that with a woman who is refused a life saving procedure whilst pregnant (such as termination of an early miscarriage complicated by sepsis) is flawed.

Ok perhaps i didn't make my point very clearly on this issue and or perhaps you haven't followed all this thread, it is very long.

My point is that each side can just throw allegations at the influence of extremist ideologies on either side. That i can see, there is no proof of church collusion or conspiracy on one side, just as much as their is no proof of feminist ideology or collusion on the other.

drkpower

franktheplank wrote: »

So this is the first the medical profession has known of this problem, it's painting the rest of it in a very bad light.

They we're willing to wait for a woman to die before something was done on this.

Nope, many doctors have been calling on the government to legislate for 20 years.

franktheplank wrote: »

From what I've seen reported, medical abortions have occured in Ireland without prosecution and loss of employment, is this correct? So what the consultant let her die to make a point, it just doesn't add up?

Yes, many medical abortions have occurred. In cases which were cut and dry, where there was no doubt that there was a substantial threat to her life. What is much rarer (and which may be at issue in this case) is pregnant women in grey areas - where there may be a risk to her life, or to her health - but where the risk is short of a 'substantial risk to her life'. that is where the problem arises - that is where (legislative) clarity is needed.

Madam_X

franktheplank wrote: »

I've made it pretty clear i've no great bones with feminist ideology. My point (if you'd followed the thread) is the number of people here using this case to push another agenda.

Yes they are, but how does bringing up a couple of crazy dead radical feminist loons highlight that?

franktheplank

drkpower wrote: »

Nope, many doctors have been calling on the government to legislate for 20 years.

That's fair enough, but surely if the constitution is as life threatening as is being claimed there would've been stronger action.

All in all, if what's being alleged is true, it doesn't reflect well on the rest of the medical profession.

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, many medical abortions have occurred. In cases which were cut and dry, where there was no doubt that there was a substantial threat to her life. What is much rarer (and which may be at issue in this case) is pregnant women in grey areas - where there may be a risk to her life, or to her health - but where the risk is short of a 'substantial risk to her life'. that is where the problem arises - that is where (legislative) clarity is needed.

That's what doesn't add up, who was going to complain if an abortion had taken place, I can't see any court going against the doctor in this case.

Even if there had been a case, the backing of colleagues and public support, I can't see any action against the dr?

Still, it just doesn't add up. The doctor is strong enough to tell the truth but still not strong enough to make the decision that won't leave them facing public outrage (and still the risk here of being made scapegoat for the whole thing)

franktheplank

Madam_X wrote: »

Yes they are, but how does bringing up a couple of crazy dead radical feminist loons highlight that?

I'm pretty sure it highlights the lack of proof against the church. We can all go around blaming conspiracies and extremists but does anyone really believe that a doctor will let a woman die in this day and age because the church says so?

Or that the people's vote doesn't stand because rapist priests and whatever other horrors of the catholic church.

Madam_X

franktheplank wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it highlights the lack of proof against the church.

It does? Mentioning Mary Daly and Valerie Solanas?

drkpower

franktheplank wrote: »

That's fair enough, but surely if the constitution is as life threatening as is being claimed there would've been stronger action.

All in all, if what's being alleged is true, it doesn't reflect well on the rest of the medical profession.

Im not sure where you have been Frank, but there have been repeated calls by doctors and non-doctors for decades now to legsilate around this issue. That you have not heard of much of it reflects perhaps more on you than on the medical profession.

franktheplank wrote: »

That's what doesn't add up, who was going to complain if an abortion had taken place, I can't see any court going against the doctor in this case.

If an abortion was perfomred while the foetus was alive and if, at that point, there was not a substanital risk to her life (for instance, lets say there was a risk to her life, but only a minor one), the doctro would have broken the law. In such a case the DPP would have had every right, and obligation to bring a case. I would like to think that the DPP would not bring a case, but that is base don nothing more than hope.

If you were a doctor in that situation, would you take that chance, with prison and loss of your livelihood possible outcomes if you get it wrong?

seb65

franktheplank wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it highlights the lack of proof against the church. We can all go around blaming conspiracies and extremists but does anyone really believe that a doctor will let a woman die in this day and age because the church says so?

Or that the people's vote doesn't stand because rapist priests and whatever other horrors of the catholic church.

A doctor who holds the same beliefs the church espouses, who also signs a declaration stating that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. Yes.

In this situation specifically, at the moment, there's only conjecture, but enough insinuation to rile people.

franktheplank

Madam_X wrote: »

It does?

Ah come on it's a fairly standard debating technique? It's using a weak arguement to highlight the identical weakness in another argument. I don't know the technical term for it but i can't take credit for inventing it I'm sure

Maybe I will, from here forthwith it shall be known as 'the plank' stratagem.

franktheplank

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure where you have been Frank, but there have been repeated calls by doctors and non-doctors for decades now to legsilate around this issue. That you have not heard of much of it reflects perhaps more on you than on the medical profession.

Ah now, you can't be blaming the plank for this. Don't tell me the consultants don't have a lot of sway with the government, how did they get all those lovely contracts and perks?

drkpower wrote: »

If an abortion was perfomred while the foetus was alive and if, at that point, there was not a substanital risk to her life (for instance, lets say there was a risk to her life, but only a minor one), the doctro would have broken the law. In such a case the DPP would have had every right, and obligation to bring a case. I would like to think that the DPP would not bring a case, but that is base don nothing more than hope.

If you were a doctor in that situation, would you take that chance, with prison and loss of your livelihood possible outcomes if you get it wrong?

Firstly, I can't see prison or the loss of possible livelihood. With all the public support, support of their profession, moral high ground etc.

Also, I could be wrong but I thought medical abortions in these or similar circumstances, ie the woman already miscarrying had been carried out before. Im pretty sure that was reported, I could be wrong though?

Finally, your ignoring from the equation the risk the consultant is now facing, ie that an inquiry will find that they should have followed 'spirit of the law' precedence set out in other cases. That they will be made a scapegoat and a hate figure.

Like I said, something doesn't add up!

drkpower

franktheplank wrote: »

Ah now, you can't be blaming the plank for this. Don't tell me the consultants don't have a lot of sway with the government, how did they get all those lovely contracts and perks?

Not much point responding to this; you'll have to do better.

franktheplank wrote: »

Firstly, I can't see prison or the loss of possible livelihood. With all the public support, support of their profession, moral high ground etc.

Whether you can 'see it' or not is irrelevent. What is relevant is the law, and whether terminating a foetus on the basis of a risk to life of the mother short of a substantial one, is illegal. It is.

franktheplank wrote: »

Finally, your ignoring from the equation the risk the consultant is now facing, ie that an inquiry will find that they should have followed 'spirit of the law' precedence set out in other cases. That they will be made a scapegoat and a hate figure.

What is the ''spirit of the law' precedence set out in other cases'?

franktheplank

seb65 wrote: »

A doctor who holds the same beliefs the church espouses, who also signs a declaration stating that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. Yes.

In this situation specifically, at the moment, there's only conjecture, but enough insinuation to rile people.

I hear what your saying i just can't understand why so many people can be so adamant there right on so many things, just on the basis of what's come out of this case so far.

From what you're saying it's the individual consultant that looks like the villian of the piece. Doesn't the medical counsel have a code of ethics on these situations, why is this consultant allowed to practice if they've clearly stated they won't follow this code?

whatdoicare

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You know even if a woman goes full term and the baby dies she has to deliver it naturally, how would you suggest they take the baby from the womb?

I know I would prefer to deliver it myself rather than have someone scrape away at my insides.

I wouldn't prefer to be forced to give birth to a dead baby - actually I'd regard that as barbaric! As I said before, my friend had a mental breakdown after being made go through this.

I would, as another said, prefer to have a choice in the matter. If I was going through that and the doctor approached me and asked me what would I prefer to do, here are your options and here are the potential dangers and risks, it's up to myself what I'm comfortable with - that IMO would be much, much more humane.

Would you not think so?

drkpower

franktheplank wrote: »

From what you're saying it's the individual consultant that looks like the villian of the piece.

Im not sure where you are getting this from. As i said at the outset, it may have been an unavoidable tragedy (noone to blame), medical negligence (the doctor's fault) or as a consequence of legal uncertainty (the government is at fault). I dont know which, or whether it is a combination of one or more of the factors.

franktheplank wrote: »

Doesn't the medical counsel have a code of ethics on these situations, why is this consultant allowed to practice if they've clearly stated they won't follow this code?

Yes, they have. It is about as vague as the one-liner in the supreme court judgment (substantial risk to the life of the mother).

If i can suggest something Frank, if you are genuinely inetersted in this issue, is to do a little bit of research on it before getting involved in in-depth discussions on it. There is plenty available online on the issue of lack of legal certanty on the issue. Read it.

franktheplank

drkpower wrote: »

Not much point responding to this; you'll have to do better.

Hey it's not me that's gonna be facing these questions it's the medical profession. There's no denying they got plenty of clout when they want it.

drkpower wrote: »

Whether you can 'see it' or not is irrelevent. What is relevant is the law, and whether terminating a foetus on the basis of a risk to life of the mother short of a substantial one, is illegal. It is.

Ok, Im no expert on constitutional law but the term serious risk of life is vague. There's plenty of room for argument there. Surely, you would save the woman first and argue later? It's not like you won't have support.

Also, can somebody tell me whether abortions have been carried out before in miscarriage situations in Ireland?

drkpower wrote: »

What is the ''spirit of the law' precedence set out in other cases'?

Well, it's pretty clear their is a degree of tolerance towards abortion, right to travel, right to information, risk to life. Coupled with the particulars of this case, it was an unviable miscarriage anyway and the support of the medical council and i think there would have been a pretty solid argument (assuming the unlikelihood that a case would have been allowed to proceed)

Again, it just doesn't add up that you would allow a woman to die and be honest and brave enough to tell her grieving husband the truth but not to actually fight her case in the first place.

Tinker13

drkpower wrote: »

If an abortion was perfomred while the foetus was alive and if, at that point, there was not a substanital risk to her life (for instance, lets say there was a risk to her life, but only a minor one),...

From my undertsanding, if the foetus was alive and there was no risk to the mother's life then an abortion would not be performed. From what i've read, the parents in this sad case would not have wanted a termination either.

But how do you legislate for 'grey areas'? i.e. if there was a 'minor' risk as mentioned above?

drkpower

franktheplank wrote: »

Ok, Im no expert on constitutional law but the term serious risk of life is vague. There's plenty of room for argument there. Surely, you would save the woman first and argue later? It's not like you won't have support.

So you agree that there is plenty of room for arguement over the meaning of the law, recognising that a doctor may indded fall foul of the criminal law if he acts to terminate where doubt exists as to whether the risk to themother is substantial. And then, in the next breath, you call on the doctor to just act, and argue later, thus risking imprisonment and the loss of his livelihood.....

No doubt you would act with such moral virtue wth your livelihood and freedom at stake.....

Ive tried to help you Frank, but unfortunately you just dont seem capable of grasping the issues here.

franktheplank

drkpower wrote: »

If i can suggest something Frank, if you are genuinely inetersted in this issue, is to do a little bit of research on it before getting involved in in-depth discussions on it. There is plenty available online on the issue of lack of legal certanty on the issue. Read it.

Sorry but there's nothing there to prohibit me from the debate, seriously?

You're even making my point for me, while your at it!

It's a lack of legal certainty, the consultant was not forced by the church or the constitution to deny an abortion. If that were the case they would be a whistle-blowing hero.

By your reasoning every consultant would need a degree in constitutional law just to practice!

drkpower

Tinker13 wrote: »

From my undertsanding, if the foetus was alive and there was no risk to the mother's life then an abortion would not be performed. From what i've read, the parents in this sad case would not have wanted a termination either.?

In this case there was a risk to the mother. We dont know when precisely that risk becams so grave as to be a substantial risk. Nor do we know what a substantial risk is, in law.

Tinker13 wrote: »

But how do you legislate for 'grey areas'? i.e. if there was a 'minor' risk as mentioned above?

Its not easy, but we legislate for grey areas in many areas.

franktheplank

drkpower wrote: »

No doubt you would act with such moral virtue wth your livelihood and freedom at stake.....

Ive tried to help you Frank, but unfortunately you just dont seem capable of grasping the issues here.

Ok stop trying to turn this back on me just because you don't like what you're hearing.

If there's some hidden depth to this i don't get please explain it to me. All's your saying is the law is vague and that's why the consultant didn't act.

I get that, it's not complicated and i've argued from there.

Again, if you have some great insight feel free to share.

franktheplank

Ok Drkpower, well i've read back over your arguments just to see if i've missed anything, and nope my point still stands.

You're arguing that the consultant would have chosen the course of action they did because they were constrained by the law. Admittedly you're arguing the constraint posed by the vagueness of the law which in essence is the same.

If that's the case I think they still have to be held up as a whistleblowing hero. No sweeping it under the carpet, openly blowing the lid on the whole situation with scant regard for their own career and the reputations of their colleagues.

They had no choice but to let that woman die but were not afraid to let people know and face the consequences. Great to see so many thousands out in support right?

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

:rolleyes: Where to begin :rolleyes:

If a woman died in a country where abortion on demand was legal. And let's just suppose the feminist movement had played some role in it being legal (that's pretty straightforward right?).

Here comes the real shocker, wait. Let's suppose she dies as a result of complications during an abortion(guess what, it happens). Does that mean abortion is wrong? And feminists killed her?

So everyone gets out marching. Abortion is banned. A woman dies because she was denied an abortion. All out marching. The church killed her. Abortion is ok again. Another woman dies from complications of abortion. The feminists killed her. All out marching. And so on and so on and so on ad infinitum.

No one is saying the church killed her..No one is saying the Doctors killed her except you in another thread!

But what we are saying is what happened was wrong.

They may not have been free or advised to do everything they could to save her.
Or they may not have felt certain they were free to.

What we are saying is that if we had abortion on demand she would be alive most likely.

seenitall

"This is a Catholic country."

The consultant was either:

a) thick as a hillbilly and proud as punch of their Catholic ethos (hopefully unlikely and hopefully not the case),

or

b) extremely frustrated at the situation and the Catholicism of the country/religion-influenced current legislation on the matter.

A whistle-blowing hero is pushing it a bit in any case. We might have not heard about Savita at all if her husband hadn't spoken up.

If you wanted to hail Savita's husband as a hero, I'd have more time for that.

partyatmygaff

poeticseraphim wrote: »

But what we are saying is what happened was wrong.

They may not have been free or advised to do everything they could to save her.
Or they may not have felt certain they were free to.

That's all very well and i'm sure we can all agree to that or at least most of it.

What we are saying is that if we had abortion on demand she would be alive most likely.

This is just disingenuous. This case is about therapeutic abortion (Or any abortion in the course of providing therapy). Not about elective abortion. Trying to latch the two together in the hope of riding on the wave of sensationalism and emotion surrounding this case just screams of opportunism.

franktheplank

seenitall wrote: »

"This is a Catholic country."

The consultant was either:

a) thick as a hillbilly and proud as punch of their Catholic ethos (hopefully unlikely and hopefully not the case),

or

b) extremely frustrated at the situation and the Catholicism of the country/religion-influenced current legislation on the matter.

A whistle-blowing hero is pushing it a bit in any case. We might have not heard about Savita at all if her husband hadn't spoken up.

If you wanted to hail Savita's husband as a hero, I'd have more time for that.

Sorry, I can see where you're coming from with Savita's husband but it still doesn't take from the consultants role.

I think your correct in saying the must have either been at fault or believed the church/constitution to be to blame.

They would have been blown out of the water if they had spoken directly to the media on an individual case (privacy laws, confidentiality etc) but by saying it to the family I'm suspecting they would have had to have known it would have gone further, or been really stupid.

My own suspicion is that the dr screwed up and just told the husband whatever he thought would keep him quiet.

Again, with the facts available as they are i think it comes down to either the dr was negligent or bravely telling the truth about an unfair system.

The former, situation A as you've called it, means we can't blame the case on the church or the constitution.

Situation B, means the consultant was bravely telling the truth but then wasn't brave enough to actually treat the patient.

The later hypothesis doesn't add up for me. Yet that's the angle most of the protesters and media are pushing, even if there conveniently forgetting the dr's role.

Laneyh

franktheplank wrote: »

:rolleyes: Where to begin :rolleyes:

If a woman died in a country where abortion on demand was legal. And let's just suppose the feminist movement had played some role in it being legal (that's pretty straightforward right?).

Here comes the real shocker, wait. Let's suppose she dies as a result of complications during an abortion(guess what, it happens). Does that mean abortion is wrong? And feminists killed her?

So everyone gets out marching. Abortion is banned. A woman dies because she was denied an abortion. All out marching. The church killed her. Abortion is ok again. Another woman dies from complications of abortion. The feminists killed her. All out marching. And so on and so on and so on ad infinitum.

Whilst its certain there are some bandwagonists jumping aboard it is quite sad and very insulting that you think people are so fickle, vacuous and dumb that they would resort to marching at the drop of a hat

Yes people are reacting to Savita's death but it has also brought into focus the many grey areas as to what medical action can and can't be carried out

The people protesting and expressing their outrage are not a bunch of crazy villagers out on a witch-hunt.

Understandably enough a lot of people are concerned about this. Will they now have to bring legal representation along with them in the case of presenting to hospital miscarrying?

franktheplank

Laneyh wrote: »

The people protesting and expressing their outrage are not a bunch of crazy villagers out on a witch-hunt.

I mightn't use those terms but i actually don't think this is far from the truth. Approx 200 children (they can't even tell us the exact amount) have died in the care of the HSE in the past ten years. Many others have gone missing a, significant proportion of which it is believed have become sex slaves.

Where's the outrage and protests for this? If all those people out protesting had protested for the other HSE scandels i'd say fair play to them but as it's a mixture of knee-jerk reaction and pushing an agenda.

Yes it's tragic. I'm not denying that but no more tragic than the other major HSE scandals.

Laneyh wrote: »

Understandably enough a lot of people are concerned about this. Will they now have to bring legal representation along with them in the case of presenting to hospital miscarrying?

And surely the medical profession must have known about this situation beforehand, if it really was the cause of the problem. Why wasn't more done then?